At the beginning of 2022 the norm was toughened and allowed to punish partial non-payment. The Supreme Court explains that criminal liability can be imposed only when the parent had a real opportunity to pay alimony, but deliberately avoided or paid irregularly or insignificantly. Courts have the right to exempt a person from liability due to insignificance of the act - taking into account the amount of the debt, the time during which it has accumulated, the motives of the non-payer. Buying groceries, things for the child, or paying for the child's expenses is not exempt from paying child support. An exception may be situations where this was regular and, in fact, the child was dependent on the alimony-paying parent.

Profile media turned to Elena Gladysheva, Managing Partner of RI-Consulting, for explanations:

1. What do you think of these clarifications, are there any controversial or expected points?

The position of the courts that buying groceries, donating things, and paying child support expenses does not relieve a parent from the obligation to pay alimony in full is not new. The court sets monthly payments for minor children, guided by Russian law, as a certain portion of the salary of the parent who is obligated to pay child support. Family law only regulates monetary payments that the person representing the child spends on the child's needs as he or she sees fit. Additional assistance provided by the parent does not relieve the alimony payer of his or her obligation to pay alimony.

2. Is it true that the RF Supreme Court proposes to consider the body of debt, without penalties (clause 12), as the full payment of alimony?

Yes, indeed, penalties are not included in this amount. Under family law, if the alimony debt is due to the fault of the payer, he pays a penalty of 0.5% of the amount of the entire debt for each day of delay. But how to make the calculation is clarified in paragraph 64 of Supreme Court Plenum No. 56 "On the application of the law by courts when considering cases involving the recovery of alimony."

3. In what situation can an alimony defaulter be exempted from criminal punishment on non-rehabilitative grounds?

If a person has compensated the damage or made amends, this in itself does not relieve from criminal responsibility, the draft specifies. However, the court may take this into account when determining the punishment or exemption from it on non-rehabilitative grounds. Paragraph 3 of Article 157 of the Criminal Code exempts from criminal liability those who have fully repaid debts on alimony. Those who have an unexpunged conviction for another crime may also be released from liability on this ground.
Another way to avoid criminal responsibility is the reconciliation of the parties (Article 76 of the Criminal Code), the ruling reminds. In this case, the method and amount of compensation is determined by the victim or his legal representative (for example, the mother of a young child).

4. Can courts now "set off" child support payments by buying things for the child, groceries, etc.? How do courts evaluate such situations if a parent is willing to buy things, pay for services, but refuses to pay child support? Can and how do parents agree that child support will be paid in the form of buying things, paying for classes, etc.?

No, the law does not allow in-kind alimony. It must always be an amount of money, set either as a percentage of earnings or as a fixed amount. Courts view such situations as an additional initiative by the parent. Parents may agree to pay alimony in the form of buying things, paying for classes by entering into an alimony agreement.

PUBLICATION LINK